Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Posted on 08/31/2008 7:09:25 AM PDT by kellynla
Catholic physicians and other doctors in California who oppose mercy killing would be forced to provide terminally ill patients with information on morally questionable “end-of-life care options” under a bill now pending in the state legislature.
The bill, AB 2747, is a repeatedly amended and watered down version of an original euthanasia measure sponsored by Assemblywoman Patty Berg, D-Eureka. Berg’s original bill, termed a “stealth assisted-suicide bill” by opponents, would have allowed doctors to administer “palliative sedation” to deliberately induce a coma, and to starve patients to death under a provision called “voluntary stopping of eating and drinking.” Also excised from the original bill was a provision requiring terminally ill patients to be referred to “Compassion & Choices,” a pro-euthanasia organization formerly known as the Hemlock Society.
The California Catholic Conference, the public policy arm of the state's bishops, lobbied hard against Berg’s bill and was instrumental in obtaining amendments that removed the most objectionable aspects of the measure. Still, the Catholic Conference remains opposed to the bill. “Amended version less egregious that previous, but still unnecessary and possibly dangerous,” says the Catholic Conference web site.
Under the bill now awaiting final legislative action, physicians would be required to inform terminally ill patients, among other things, that they have the “right of refusal or withdrawal from life-sustaining treatment.”
The bill’s official legislative title is the “California Right to Know End-of-Life Act of 2008,” although the Sacramento Bee described it in an Aug. 21 story as “right-to-die legislation.” The state Senate approved Berg’s bill on Aug. 20 by a vote of 21 to 17, and sent it back to the Assembly, where it originated, for concurrence in some minor changes.
(Excerpt) Read more at calcatholic.com ...
ping
Yes, any government decision that (deliberately) kills people is “possibly dangerous.”
Let me tell you how particularly relevant this is. It seems “terminal sedation” is now sweeping the nation as a “hidden” sort of euthanasia. Even Catholic hospitals allow it, not all but some. It is a frightening thing. V’s wife.
THAT, FOLKS, IS THE DEMOCRAT PARTY'S MANTRA AND IT IS ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT WHAT THEY STAND FOR.
More democrats for death.
I have the moral duty to save your life, but at some point in time we may find ourseles in a case where my moral duty impinges upon one's right to die. I have no right to force my moral imparitives to deny anyone of their most basic rights. For example, I have no right to hold you back from attempting to rescue your children, friends, pets from a fire. I may try to talk you out of it; but in the end, this is your decision. And you will be held accountable to whatever supreme being you worship for that decision.
If a person makes a sane, sober and conclusive decision to voluntarily surrender to the enevitable, while I may refuse to aid them, I have no right to deny them their right. We all know that death is enevitable, we are all going to face it at some time or another. Dying slowly and painfully, depleting whatever funds I have saved and thus leaving my family in debt, with no hope of postponing my life by any significant time, would cause me a series of very intense prayers and personl introspection. To deny me the aility to fulfill my decision, simply because I lack the physical ability to defend my rights is a gross violation.
Sure like to see Patty Berg test this out on herself first. Then she can get back to us later with a first-hand report or something.
How do we know that an Army's recruit is free from coersion? How do we know anyone's decision is free from coersion? For all we know, each of us has a gun to their head as we right our responses, and our response is dictated. At some time we have to assume that everyone is exercising their freedom of self-determination - until we actually have evidence of insanity or coersion.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. I agree, if a Democrat said it's raining during a hurricane; I'd have to check it for myself.
I also am against euthanasia. Making slippery slope laws such as this one we are discussing worries me.
And yet, after having worked as a nursing assistant in a nursing home, and now working in a hospital in a direct patient care capacity in the ICU, I have personally seen old folks beg to be let to die. Old folks verbally wishing to die.
It's hard to watch our precious elderly intubated and having other tubes coming out and going into every natural and man-made orifice in their bodies - taking fecal matter and urine out, putting feeding tube nutrition in, wound vacs suctioning drainage from bed sores so deep you can see their spines, chest tubes draining liquid buildup.
If they do survive this, they won't be the same. They will probably end up in a nursing home or if they are lucky and have a family with enough money, total home care. Don't expect them to be able to get up and go to the bathroom on their own or even be able to walk anymore.
I am no atheist - I am a born again Christian. I know God would punish me in no uncertain terms were I to take it upon myself to "relieve these souls from their suffering" by direct withdrawal of health care and life or purposely administer something that would cause them to die.
And as a Christian I cannot support laws that tread into euthanasia territory.
On the other hand, I believe that a physician knows whether there is hope or not for the very sick and it should remain with his patient and him and then loved ones whether to continue life support efforts. For some it means continuing medication for blood pressure, antibiotics, etc but if the patient arrests, no CPR. For others it means extubating and moving the patient to hospice, and administering medication to relieve pain and suffering.
And after this, some do go on living! Yes, miracles happen!
Personally, I want DNR (do not resuscitate). I don't want to end up in a nursing home and I have no children or husband to take care of me at home. I don't want tubes keeping me alive only to be half a vegetable if I survive. I am afraid of how I will die, but not afraid of death because I know there is a better place in heaven.
I guess what I am trying to say here is that our medical breakthroughs and technology and pharmaceuticals have post-poned death for many who would not have made it years ago. And for many, the miracle of prayer has added to a patient's survival and continuing to lead a full, productive life.
But there are many, especially our very elderly, where the health care to keep them alive just prolongs existing, either bed ridden with tubes or totally dependent in a staff-strapped nursing home, incontinent, unable to feed oneself, getting horrendous bed sores, unable to walk and talk. Still nature must take its course - not some bureaucrat thousands of miles away.
So, in conclusion, medicine has helped but at the same time complicated things in many ways.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Dying slowly and painfully, depleting whatever funds I have saved and thus leaving my family in debt, with no hope of postponing my life by any significant time, would cause me a series of very intense prayers and personl introspection.
Simple solution: hospice. Euthanasia is unnecessary.
Most hospice organizations today have quietly begun embracing terminal sedation. Euthanasia.V’s wife.
Being a hospice nurse myself, I explain to families there are signs when a person has reached the point of no return.
We neither speed up nor slow down the inevitable, but we do let nature take it’s course AS we ensure a person doesn’t needlessly suffer and remains as comfortable as possible as best we can.
It’s humane.
And it’s NOT euthanasia.
There’s a ton of misinformation out there that hurts hospice.
My understanding is Hospice has moved towards Terminal Sedation, something not widely understood by lay folks. Terminal sedation can and does occur when life is not determined as being worth living by physicians, but individuals may still want to live. There are lots of sites by disabled folks warning that our warm and comfy old Hospice workers now work to end life that is not, according to them, viable. That could mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people. Terminal Sedation could simply mean pumping plenty of morphine in to that old guy in the bed with pneumonia no matter that he might go home again and enjoy some quality of life, as well end up back for more treatement. What can we do when our loved ones are in that situation, pray for God’s mercy. It’s his decision, after all. V’s wife.
Your misunderstanding of terminal sedation is quite common.
We use terminal sedation all the time, and always have. It’s simply keeping someone comfortable, either with morphine or ativan or both while they’re dying.
There’s no such thing as terminal sedation if they’re going to live for any amount of time.
But there’s ‘relief of symptoms’ until and while they’re dying. Terminal sedation comes into play when a pt. develops terminal agitation.
We don’t give medication to someone that doesnt’t want it, and if they can’t speak for themselves, we have to follow advance directives or a family member’s wishes.
A doctor can’t decide who’s life is “worthless” let alone when that point comes.
What I DO see is they’re so petrified of lawsuits they don’t give “enough” medications to relieve symptoms.
THE FAR MORE COMMON PROBLEM I see is ignorant people who allow needless suffering due to stigmas about either hospice, or death and dying or both. Time and again I’ve seen people die needless horrible painful deaths because some jackass, usually from out of town and/or hasn’t seen the pt. for years, knows better than everyone else and doesn’t want them “full of morphine”.
If someone is dying with cancer (or anything for that matter but cancer is often particularly painful), and it’s painful and causes anxiety, it would be inhumane to not intervene, because they need it, rather they’re actively dying or not.
Now some nurses can see some things subjectively, and there are some bad doctors out there, but this is how we’re trained. We don’t just sedate people and knock them out, which would speed up death.
I’m sure some hospices are better or worse than others. But each and every one I’ve worked at here in Atlanta, over the past 20 years, some dozen or more of them does this the same way and always have.
Senator Sam Aanestad (R-Grass Valley) says he will urge Governor Schwarzenegger to veto AB 2747, the “Terminal Patients End of Life Information Act” when the bill lands on the Governor’s desk. Senator Aanestad, a licensed Oral Surgeon and Vice-Chair of the Senate Health Committee, has deep concerns about the effects of AB 2747 on patient care.
“The so-called end of life options act interferes with the medical care of people who just received the worst news of their lives,” said Senator Aanestad. “State government has no business intruding upon the doctor-patient relationship at that time, yet that is exactly what this bill does.”
AB 2747 is sponsored by an organization called Compassion and Choices. The group, formerly known as the Hemlock Society, has strongly advocated for physician-assisted suicide legislation in the past. The founder of this group, Derek Humphry, once praised Dr. Jack Kevorkian for assisting in the deaths of 130 people.
Dozens of opponents testified against this measure during a recent marathon hearing of the Senate Health Committee. They included disability rights advocates, nursing organizations, doctors who care for cancer patients, minority rights groups, members of religious communities, hospitals and individuals whose lives and families are affected by this issue.
“I want the Governor to clearly know that this measure cloaked as compassion is actually sponsored by a group of people who want to give physicians the legal right to take part in the death of another person,” said Senator Aanestad. “Failing to do that in the past, they have introduced this measure as a small first step which looks innocent, but opens the door to further ‘end of life’ intrusions.”
Senator Aanestad believes that patients facing terminal illness need information based on who they are as individuals, not an intrusion into their relationship with their doctor.
“Patients don’t need their doctors to dispense a laundry list developed by Sacramento politicians” said Senator Aanestad. “It’s downright cruel to take a list of treatments that may not even apply to a patient and have the doctor say ‘here, this is what the State of California legislates I must tell you when you find out that you’re dying and you ask me what to do.’”
AB 2747 is opposed by numerous hospitals and other organizations including California Disability Alliance, California Family Council, California Nurses for Ethical Standards, Mercy San Juan Medical Center, Sierra Nevada Memorial Hospital, and St. Mary’s Medical Center, San Francisco.
The Governor may be contacted to request a veto:
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-445-2841
Fax: 916-558-3160 (new number)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.